*419 Opinion

The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 14-62, and specifically § 14-62 (a) (9),1 imposes a “reasonable cost” limitation on the amount that an automobile dealer may charge as a “conveyance fee” for processing documentation or “performing services related to the closing of a sale . . . .” The plaintiff, Dyvon Small, appeals, following our grant of certification,2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court answering a reserved question in favor of the defendant, Going Forward, Inc., and concluding that § 14-62 (a) (9) imposes disclosure obligations, but does not regulate the amount that a car dealer may charge as a conveyance fee. Small v. Going Forward, Inc., 91 Conn. App. 39, 45-46, 879 A.2d 911 (2005). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The record reveals the following stipulated facts and procedural history. On or about June 5, 2002, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, a Connecticut corporation and licensed dealer of motor vehicles, to purchase a 2001 Chrysler 300M. The contract included a “ ‘dealer conveyance fee’ ” of $299, which was disclosed on the purchase order. That pur*420chase order also disclosed, in ten point bold type, that “ ‘THE DEALER CONVEYANCE “FEE” IS NOT PAYABLE TO THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.’ ” The plaintiff signed the purchase order, and the defendant accepted it, thus completing the sale and transfer of the vehicle.

Thereafter, the plaintiff, a resident of Connecticut who has proposed to represent the class of persons who had purchased motor vehicles from the defendant, brought this class action. He claims that the defendant’s $299 conveyance fee violated § 14-62 because it exceeded the reasonable costs for processing all documentation and performing costs related to closing the sales of motor vehicles. The plaintiff also claims that this breach of § 14-62 was a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

After the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to strike, the parties jointly requested that the trial court reserve the underlying question of law involved herein for the advice of the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-235 and Practice Book § 73-1. Thereafter, the trial court granted the parties’ request, and sought advice from the Appellate Court on the issue of whether “§ 14-62 of the General Statutes regulate[s] the amount that a motor vehicle dealer may charge as a dealer conveyance fee, such that a court may determine that the statute is violated if the amount charged is not reasonable in light of the dealer’s reasonable costs for processing all documentation and performing services related to the closing of the sale of the vehicle?”

The Appellate Court answered the reserved question in the negative. See Small v. Going Forward, Inc., supra, 91 Conn. App. 46. The Appellate Court concluded that § 14-62 (a) is plain and unambiguous, and that *421“ [cheating an obligation for dealers to disclose certain information in both the order and the invoice is [its] unmistakable and primary purpose . . . .” Id., 44. The Appellate Court concluded that the use of the word “reasonable” in the statute does not substantively limit the amount that a dealer can charge as a conveyance fee, because it is a definition that, “[r]ead in context . . . relates only to the dealer’s duty to disclose the fee. This definitional language defines the terms used in the primary, or substantive, parts of the statute. There is no indication that it gives rise to a separate obligation.” Id., 45; see also id., 46 (“[i]t appears that, here, the definition of fees, as the ‘reasonable costs’ related to the closing of the sale, is meant to explain what information must be disclosed”). This certified appeal followed. See footnote 2 of this opinion.

“When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. ... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § l-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered. . . . When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Ins. *422Guaranty Assn. v. State, 278 Conn. 77, 82, 896 A.2d 747 (2006). “The test to determine ambiguity is whether the statute, when read in context, is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alexson v. Foss, 276 Conn. 599, 605, 887 A.2d 872 (2006).

We begin with the determination that our inquiry in the present case may be informed by extratextual sources because the thoughtful arguments of the parties and the amicus curiae, the state of Connecticut, demonstrate that the relevant statutory language is subject to more than one “reasonable interpretation.” The plaintiff, supported by the amicus, contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that § 14-62 merely imposes a disclosure obligation and is not a substantive limitation on the amount that a car dealership may charge as a conveyance fee. Specifically, the plaintiff emphasizes that the Appellate Court’s reading of the statute renders meaningless the word “reasonable” in the definition of conveyance fees in subsection (a) (9) of § 14-62, and also is inconsistent with subsection (c) of § 14-62, which requires dealerships to reduce conveyance fees by a “proportional amount” when their customers register their cars for themselves. The plaintiff and the amicus also contend that the Appellate Court’s construction of § 14-62 raises the specter of dealerships luring customers with the promise of low prices, and then subjecting them to inflated conveyance fees.

In response, the defendant contends that § 14-62 is plainly and unambiguously3 a disclosure statute, and not a substantive limitation on conveyance fees. The defendant relies on the statute’s title, and the definitional, rather than regulatory, nature of the statutory *423language at issue. The defendant also disagrees with the plaintiffs reading of § 14-62 (c), and claims that, if the legislature had intended to regulate conveyance fees, it would have used specific mandatory language doing so. Finally, the defendant notes that customers wishing to avoid high conveyance fees are free to take their business to other dealerships, or to reduce those fees by handling the registration paperwork by themselves. We agree with the defendant that § 14-62 does not impose a reasonable cost limitation on the amount that an automobile dealer may charge as a conveyance fee.

We begin with the relevant statutory language. Section 14-62 (a), the subsection specifically at issue in this appeal, requires that each motor vehicle “sale shall be evidenced by an order properly signed by both the buyer and seller, a copy of which shall be furnished to the buyer when executed, and an invoice upon delivery of the motor vehicle, both of which shall contain the following information: (1) Make of vehicle; (2) year of model, whether sold as new or used, and on invoice the identification number; (3) deposit, and (A) if the deposit is not refundable, the words ‘No Refund of Deposit’ shall appear at this point, and (B) if the deposit is conditionally refundable, the words ‘Conditional Refund of Deposit’ shall appear at this point, followed by a statement giving the conditions for refund, and (C) if the deposit is unconditionally refundable, the words ‘Unconditional Refund’ shall appear at this point; (4) cash selling price; (5) finance charges, and (A) if these charges do not include insurance, the words ‘No Insurance’ shall appear at this point, and (B) if these charges include insurance, a statement shall appear at this point giving the exact type of coverage; (6) allowance on motor vehicle traded in, if any, and description of the same; (7) stamped or printed in a size equal to at least ten-point bold type on the face of both order *424and invoice one of the following forms: (A) ‘This motor vehicle not guaranteed’, or (B) ‘This motor vehicle is guaranteed’, followed by a statement as to the terms of such guarantee, which statement shall not apply to household furnishings of any trailer; (8) if the motor vehicle is new but has been subject to use by the seller or use in connection with his business as a dealer, the word ‘demonstrator’ shall be clearly displayed on the face of both order and invoice; (9) any dealer conveyance fee or processing fee and a statement that such fee is not payable to the state of Connecticut printed in at least ten-point bold type on the face of both order and invoice. For the purposes of this subdivision, ‘dealer conveyance fee’ or ‘processing fee’ means afee charged by a dealer to recover reasonable costs for processing all documentation and performing services related to the closing of a sale, including, but not limited to, the registration and transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle which is the subject of the sale." (Emphasis added.)

The plaintiffs reading of § 14-62 (a), namely, that, “[i]f the legislature intended the statute to be strictly one of disclosure, then it would not have been necessary to include the term ‘reasonable’ within the definition,” has initial appeal in light of the statutory language standing alone and in view of the “basic tenet of statutory construction that the legislature [does] not intend to enact meaningless provisions. . . . [I]n construing statutes, we presume that there is a purpose behind every sentence, clause, or phrase used in an act and that no part of a statute is superfluous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 278 Conn. 326, 335, 898 A.2d 170 (2006). The plaintiff also notes correctly that § 14-62 is a consumer protection statute that, like CUTPA, is remedial in nature and is, therefore, liberally construed in favor of those the legislature intended to benefit. See, e.g., Eder *425Bros., Inc. v. Wine Merchants of Connecticut, Inc., 275 Conn. 363, 379, 880 A.2d 138 (2005). The plaintiffs view is, however, based on a superficial reading of only one subsection of the statute, along with two maxims of statutory construction read in isolation.4 A closer reading of § 14-62, related statutes and the legislative history leads us to the conclusion that § 14-62 (a) (9) is a disclosure rule and not a substantive limitation on the amount that dealers may charge as a conveyance fee.

The primary problem with the plaintiffs reading of § 14-62 (a) (9) is that it is undermined by the language of that clause viewed in the context of the rest of the subsection, as well as the chapter as a whole.5 A review *426of the language at issue in its structural context demonstrates that it solely is definitional in nature, rather than regulatory or prohibitory. See Toll Gate Farms, Inc. v. Milk Regulation Board, 148 Conn. 341, 346, 170 A.2d 883 (1961) (statutory definition of “skimmed milk” that did not encompass nonskim, but low-fat milk bottled by plaintiff did not preclude sale of plaintiffs milk because that sale would be regulated by other statutory provision actually governing all milk sales);6 see also 1A J. Sutherland, Statutory Construction (6th Ed. Singer 2002) §§ 20:2, 20:8 and 20:16 (distinguishing between various functions of component parts of statute, including definitions and standards of conduct). The subject of the mandatory language of § 14-62 is the content of the purchase order and invoice, as subsection (a) provides that each motor vehicle “sale shall be evi*427denced by an order properly signed by both the buyer and seller, a copy of which shall be furnished to the buyer when executed, and an invoice upon delivery of the motor vehicle, both of which shall contain the following information . . . any dealer conveyance fee or processing fee and a statement that such fee is not payable to the state of Connecticut printed in at least ten-point bold type on the face of both order and invoice.” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 14-62 (a) (9).

Indeed, a review of other statutes, some of which are cited by the plaintiff in his reply brief, demonstrates that the legislature affirmatively has regulated fees with a reasonableness standard in other contexts, but has done so in the section of the statute actually governing substantive conduct.7 See, e.g., General Statutes § 1-205 (i) (freedom of information commission “shall make available to the public the printed reports of its decisions, opinions and related materials at a reasonable cost not to exceed the actual cost thereof to said commission but not less than twenty-eight dollars per item” [emphasis added]); General Statutes § 4a-2b (department of administrative services “may charge the housing authorities a reasonable fee to provide for the administrative costs of the [master property and casualty insurance] program” for government funded housing units [emphasis added]); General Statutes § 36a-785 (c) (The holder of an installment sales contract “shall within three days of the retaking furnish or mail, by registered or certified mail, to the last known address *428of the buyer a written statement of the unaccelerated sum due under such contract and the actual and reasonable expense of any retaking and storing. For failure to furnish or mail such statement as required by this section, the holder of the contract shall forfeit the right to claim payment for the actual and reasonable expenses of retaking and storage . . . .” [Emphasis added.]); see also General Statutes § 14-99h (c) (“Each new car dealer, used car dealer or lessor shall charge reasonable rates for etching services and parts marking services rendered within the state pursuant to subsections [a] and [b] of this section and shall file a schedule of such rates with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles not later than September first in each year. Each such dealer or lessor may from time to time file an amended schedule of such rates with the commissioner. No such dealer or lessor may charge any rate for such etching services or parts marking services which is greater than the rates contained in the most recent schedule filed with the commissioner.” [Emphasis added.]); General Statutes § 42-423 (e) (“[i]n addition to charges for excess wear and tear under chapter 743k, a consumer lease of a motor vehicle may provide for the imposition of a reasonable charge for excess mileage” [emphasis added]).

That § 14-62 (a) (9) is not a substantive limitation on the amount charged is further demonstrated by § 14-62 (c), which more specifically regulates conveyance fees. Section 14-62 (c) provides: “Each dealer shall provide a written statement to the buyer or prominently display a sign in the area of his place of business in which sales are negotiated which shall specify the amount of any conveyance or processing fee charged by such dealer, the services performed by the dealer for such fee, that such fee is not payable to the state of Connecticut and that the buyer may elect, where appropriate, to submit the documentation required for the registration and *429transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle which is the subject of the sale to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, in which case the dealer shall reduce such fee by a proportional amount. The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles shall determine the size, typeface and arrangement of such information.” Subsection (c) of § 14-62 is telling, because it indicates that the legislature did act affirmatively to regulate some aspects of the conveyance fee, while leaving the precise amount for the dealer to determine, so long as that fee is disclosed properly. Indeed, the directive of § 14-62 (c) providing that dealers shall reduce conveyance fees by a “proportional amount” for customers who elect to handle their own documentation is phrased in conduct regulating language, unlike the language of § 14-62 (a) (9) relied on by the plaintiff.8 Finally, the legislature’s directive *430to the commissioner of motor vehicles to determine by regulation the proper size, typeface and arrangement of the disclosure information indicates that it also could have, if it desired, referred the question of any fee amount limitations to the commissioner for regulation.9

*431Moreover, General Statutes (Sup. 2006) § 14-64,10 the chapter’s general enforcement provision, provides fur*432ther indication that the legislature did not view § 14-62 as imposing a substantive limitation on conveyance fees. Although General Statutes (Sup. 2006) § 14-64 (1) contains a general catch-all provision allowing the commissioner to sanction a licensee if he or she finds that a licensee has “violated any provision of any statute or regulation of any state or any federal statute or regulation pertaining to its business as a licensee or has failed to comply with the terms of a final decision and order of any state department or federal agency concerning any such provision,” that section also recites a litany of sanctionable specific actions, none of which include the charging of unreasonable conveyance fees. See footnote 10 of this opinion. Indeed, § 14-64 specifically mentions § 14-62, but only in the context of when a dealer “has failed to fully execute or provide the buyer with (A) an order as described in section 14-62, (B) the properly assigned certificate of title, or (C) a temporary transfer or new issue of registration . . . .” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes (Sup. 2006) § 14-64 (7).11

*433Finally, the only relevant comments in the legislative history provide no indication that the legislature intended § 14-62 (a) (9) to regulate the amount that a dealer could charge as a conveyance fee, but rather, that it viewed the statute as an important disclosure measure designed to inform consumers about the optional nature of such fees.12 Section 14-62 (a) (9) and (c) were enacted in 1998 as § 18 of No. 98-182 of the 1998 Public Acts. Speaking in support of that portion of the bill that ultimately was enacted as Public Act 98-*434182, Representative Jacqueline M. Coceo described it as “actually a consumer protection piece [that] simply states that car dealers should let those buyers of their vehicles know that the dealer conveyance fee in ten point bold type what that dealer conveyance fee is and that it does [not] need [to] be paid by the purchaser of the vehicle, that they indeed can go to the Department of Motor Vehicle[s], do that paperwork themselves, and not be subject to that fee. And also to note that that money is not collected by the State nor none of it does go to the State.” 41 H.R. Proc., Pt. 13, 1998 Sess., p. 4342. Similarly, Representative Kenneth P. Green commented: “I really like some of the things [in] the bill. I’m really glad that we’re able to now have car dealerships make the public aware of the conveyance. I particularly had an incident where I was told that I had to pay the conveyance fee. I think the bill is in the right direction and that we’re moving to let the public know that that’s an optional fee.” Id., pp. 4376-77. Our conclusion as to the limited scope of § 14-62, therefore, finds support in the legislative history because “[statements of legislators often provide strong indication of legislative intent.”13 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn. 279, 313, 819 A.2d 260 (2003).

Accordingly, we conclude that § 14-62 (a) imposes a disclosure obligation only, and is not a substantive limitation on the amount that a car dealer may charge as a “conveyance fee.” The Appellate Court, therefore, *435properly answered the reserved question in the negative.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

In this opinion KATZ, PALMER, ZARELLA and SULLIVAN, Js., concurred.

with whom VERTEFEUILLE, J., joins, dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that General Statutes § 14-62 (a) (9)1 does not limit the amount that an automobile dealer may charge as a “conveyance fee” to the “reasonable costs” of the listed *436services related to the closing of the sale of an automobile. I conclude, consistent with both the language and the evident purpose of the relevant statutory scheme, that a dealer conveyance fee means what § 14-62 (a) (9) says it means, namely, “a fee charged by a dealer to recover reasonable costs” for processing the documentation and performing the other services related to the closing of the sale of the automobile. I therefore dissent.

The specific language at issue is the entirety of subdivision (9) of subsection (a) of § 14-62, which provides that each order and invoice for the sale of an automobile “shall contain the following information . . . any dealer conveyance fee or processing fee and a statement that such fee is not payable to the state of Connecticut printed in at least ten-point bold type on the face of both the order and invoice. For purposes of this subdivision [9], ‘dealer conveyance fee’ or ‘processing fee’ means afee charged by a dealer to recover reasonable costs for processing all documentation and performing services related to the closing of a sale, including, but not limited to, the registration and transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle which is the subject of the sale.” (Emphasis added.)

The majority concludes that “§ 14-62 (a) (9) is a disclosure rule and not a substantive limitation on the amount that dealers may charge as a conveyance fee,” because “the language at issue in its structural context demonstrates that it solely is definitional in nature, rather than regulatory or prohibitory.” These are false dichotomies. Simply because § 14-62 embodies disclosure obligations on the seller does not mean that it does not also impose substantive obligations. Simply because the language at issue defines a conveyance fee does not mean that it does not also regulate the amount of the fee. In this regard, it is important to acknowledge, which the majority fails to do, that the entire last sen-*437fence of § 14-62 (a) (9) — not just the two words, “reasonable costs,” on which the majority focuses— constitutes the definition of “conveyance fee.”

Indeed, precisely because the language of the last sentence of § 14-62 (a) (9) is definitional, the natural inference is that the legislature intended all of the definition, not just part of it, to have effect, and that it have both a disclosure and regulatory effect in accordance with its language and purpose.2 In the present case, that inference is supported by the fact that the statute is a consumer protection statute that is remedial in nature, and therefore must be construed in favor of those whom the legislature intended to benefit, namely, car buyers. Those buyers would be more fully protected by affording the definition its most likely meaning, namely, that not only must the conveyance fee be disclosed, but, as § 14-62 (a) (9) specifically provides, the conveyance fee must reflect the “reasonable costs for processing all documentation and performing services related to the closing of a sale, including, but not limited to, the registration and transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle which is the subject of the sale.”

*438The majority, however, interprets the last sentence of § 14-62 (a) (9) as if it provided as follows: “For the purposes of this subdivision, ‘dealer conveyance fee’ or ‘processing fee’ means a fee charged by a dealer . . . for processing all documentation and performing services related to the closing of a sale, including, but not limited to, the registration and transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle which is the subject of the sale.” It does not so provide, however. Instead, the last sentence of § 14-62 (a) (9) provides as follows: “For the purposes of this subdivision, ‘dealer conveyance fee’ or ‘processing fee’ means a fee charged by a dealer to recover reasonable costs for processing all documentation and performing services related to the closing of a sale, including, but not limited to, the registration and transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle which is the subject of the sale.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the majority reads the definition as if there were four words — “to recover reasonable costs” — that are missing, or do not exist. Unless there is some compelling evidence that the legislature did not intend all of its definition to have effect, there is no justification for refusing to give all of its definition meaning and effect. There is no such evidence here.3

*439We have previously recognized that “[cjourts are bound to accept the legislative definition of terms in a statute.” Toll Gate Farms, Inc. v. Milk Regulation Board, 148 Conn. 341, 347, 170 A.2d 883 (1961).4 Ignoring this rule, the majority has simply read out of the definition the language “to recover reasonable costs” — essen*440tially rewriting the legislative definition of the term “conveyance fee.” Despite the majority’s conclusion that somehow this language of the single definitional sentence has no meaning or application because it is definitional, but the rest of the same definitional sentence does have meaning or application, I do not understand why that is so. As the majority acknowledges, we ordinarily do not interpret statutes to render statutory language superfluous. I agree with that. The majority explains, however, that the canons of construction are merely guides to interpretation and cannot displace the process of careful and thoughtful interpretation. I also agree with that. But that explanation does not lead to the majority’s conclusion that, when the legislature specifically included in the § 14-62 (a) (9) definition of “conveyance fee” the language “to recover reasonable costs,” it intended that language to have no meaning or application whatsoever. Put another way, the majority’s explanation does not lead to the conclusion that only those four words of the definition of “conveyance fee” have no meaning or application, but the rest of the words of the definition do have meaning and application. Yet that is precisely the effect of the majority’s interpretation.

That the legislature intended the phrase “to recover reasonable costs” to have meaning is also supported by the language of subsection (c) of § 14-62, which provides in relevant part: “Each dealer shall provide a written statement to the buyer or prominently display a sign in the area of his place of business in which sales are negotiated which shall specify the amount of any conveyance or processing fee charged by such dealer, the services performed by the dealer for such fee, that such fee is not payable to the state of Connecticut and that the buyer may elect, where appropriate, to submit the documentation required for the registration and transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle which is *441the subject of the sale to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, in which case the dealer shall reduce such fee by a proportional amount. ...” (Emphasis added.) First, the requirement that the dealer reduce the conveyance fee by a proportional amount demonstrates that the legislature, unlike the majority, did not believe it was somehow barred from imposing a substantive obligation within a statute that has as its primary purpose requiring disclosure. Put another way, the fact that the dealer is required by the statute to reduce the fee by a proportional amount if the buyer elects to submit the documentation to the commissioner of motor vehicles himself indicates that the legislature did not intend for the primary purpose of § 14-62, requiring disclosure, to be its exclusive purpose. Second, the nature of the substantive obligation, that the dealer must reduce the conveyance fee by a proportional amount when the buyer elects to submit to the commissioner of motor vehicles the registration and transfer of ownership documents is consistent with the definition of the conveyance fee as one that reflects the reasonable costs of the dealer because subsection (c) of § 14-62 requires that the reduction in the fee be proportional to the costs of registration and transfer of ownership documents. This language, especially when read together with the requirement that the dealer must disclose the services performed by the dealer for the conveyance fee, indicates that the legislature intended the fee to reflect the dealer’s cost of performance.

The majority’s interpretation might make some sense if it could be established that, in the context of the statutory scheme, the inclusion of the four missing words would serve no ascertainable legislative purpose. That, however, is far from the case.

First, the missing words serve the legislative purpose, not only of disclosure that there is such a thing as a *442conveyance fee and its amount, but also the legislative purpose of requiring that the fee be reasonable so as to protect the consumer. In the context of most car sales, the buyer does not ordinarily become interested in the conveyance fee until he has decided to buy the car. With no limitation whatsoever on the amount of the fee, an unscrupulous car dealer can lowball the sales price and then, once the buyer has agreed, highball the conveyance fee to recoup profits in the form of the fee. The buyer then would be faced with walking away from the deal or accepting it, but if the buyer stays, there would no regulatory or legal sanction on the seller for exacting an unreasonably high conveyance fee that has no real relation to the seller’s actual costs for performing the services necessary to close the sale. It takes no flight of imagination to recognize the avoidance of such a scenario as a legitimate legislative purpose of requiring that any conveyance fee be “reasonable.”

Second, the definition of “conveyance fee” applies, not just to § 14-62, but also to General Statutes § 14-62a (a), which governs advertising of prices of car sales.5 Section 14-62a (a) provides that the stated advertised price must include the federal tax, cost of delivery, dealer preparation and other charges, “except that such advertisement shall state in at least eight-point bold type that any state or local tax, registration fees or dealer conveyance fee or processing fee, as defined in subsection (a) of section 14-62, is excluded from such stated price.” (Emphasis added.) The legislative importance of this provision is underscored by subsection *443(b) of § 14-62a, which imposes a fine of not more than $1000, as well as suspension or revocation of license, for any violation of subsection (a) of § 14-62a.

It is obvious that the purpose of this statute is to require truth in price advertising for the benefit of the consumer. What the majority opinion fails to grasp is that the limitation of a dealer’s conveyance fee to the amount of the dealer’s reasonable costs in closing the sale of an automobile furthers the primary purpose of the statute by preventing a dealer from misleading consumers regarding the actual “price” of an automobile by manipulating the conveyance fee to hide profit. In the absence of the limit provided by the legislature in the definition of “conveyance fee,” the protection afforded consumers by § 14-62 is significantly weakened. Thus, if the conveyance fee is substantively limited to that which is “reasonable,” an unscrupulous car dealer could not easily advertise an unreasonably low price — thereby attracting car buyers to its lot, rather than to the lots of its competitors — and then, once the deal is made, up the ante with an unregulated and unreasonable conveyance fee. Under the majority’s interpretation, however, the unscrupulous car dealer is given the incentive to do precisely that. In fact, under the majority’s interpretation, by virtue of which a conveyance fee is wholly unregulated, even scrupulous car dealers are given the incentive to lowball their prices and highball their conveyance fees, in order to meet the competition of those unscrupulous dealers who are doing the same. This set of incentives, created by the majority’s interpretation, would wholly undermine the fundamental purpose of the section. We should not read a statute to undermine its evident purpose.

I would, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court, and remand the case to that court with direction to answer the reserved question, “Yes.”